71–80 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why do you think it's a bad idea to argue with a libertarian? Every time I argue with a libertarian, it's an endless series of "No True Scotsman" arguments.
That's odd. Can you give me an example of a common libertarian No True Scotsman argument?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597: ), build a fence along the US-Mexico border ( http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml ), prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced) ( http://thomas.loc.g…
You make all these points as if it's self-evident ("to all right-thinking peoples", "no one here but us...") that he's dead wrong about them. That's not very helpful. Of course human life begins at conception--what is the combined human egg & sperm, a fish? And what's so great about NATO? The US should bear the brunt of the cost of defending Europe against whom now, exactly? The Federal Reserve came into being the sa…
By extension any woman who suffers a miscarriage is a murderer, or worse, has a fertilized egg that fails to implant. Are you sure you want to stick with that definition?
> What's so great about estate taxes?
It prevents most of the money in circulation from accumulating in the hands of a very small number of individuals. It was a reaction to the situation in Europe where the finances of a country were, and had always been, completely locked up and social mobility was nearly impossible.
The rate at which these inheritances should be taxed is debatable, as the current rate might be a bit too high or, as Warren Buffet and many of his associates would have you believe, too low. He intends to push 99% of his wealth into charities before he dies so that his children will inherit only a few hundred million, minus estate taxes. Those poor kids. How will they ever survive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Others have chimed in with similar explanations but it often revolves around the principal problem of how do you allow "freedom" without infringing on someone else's? For instance, if I want to drink radiation laced water, Libertarians would think I have the right. They'd also say I should have to pay for my own medical treatment resulting from that. Reasonable enough. However, if I drank radiation laced water becaus…
You're assuming it's only the government which is interested in providing me the information about services I use and the environment that I live in. An implicit monopoly of information. But I want to ask you this question: can you come up with at least one monopoly that existed naturally for a substantial period of time without any government support for it and without anyone being able to challenge it?
You can only "vote" for a company with your dollars if you have choices, not if they assume a de-facto monopoly.
At least in theory you can vote for your government and effect change that way. This is why they serve a critical function.
Corporations are profit driven. Governments are election driven. These two dynamics can work together to create a reasonably good outcome. Libertarianism promotes corporate interest in isolation of regulation, leading to a run-away system of chaos and virtual anarchy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was in china for a month and had a great time eating at local restaurants that weren't monitored by health inspectors. Most of the developing world does not have health inspectors monitoring restaurants because it's not that important of a thing to do. The lack of food regulations in China made it possible for lots of amazing restaurants to exist because local people don't worry about regulations. If they want to s…
In China far more people die from eating food laced with toxins than do in countries with food inspectors. Your argument is totally absurd. So many people in Africa are dying of AIDS, malaria, and other diseases that have long been cured in western society, near apocalyptic levels of death by European standards, yet the population is growing and commerce is going on. Are you suggesting that this situation is "quite n…
In China, far more people die from a lot of things because the majority of the country still lives in poverty. Lack of government regulation is why they are one of the world's fastest growing economy and economic growth is the main engine for solving their health issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).
Personal stewardship of nuclear weapons. Please don't "prove to me how it actually would work". Just think about it a while for yourself, and learn to accept that there's limits to the philosophy. Libertarianism is ultimately a heuristic, and you do it no favors by handwavingly claiming that you can prove desirable large scale behaviors based on a small set of axioms. Signed - a libertarian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In China far more people die from eating food laced with toxins than do in countries with food inspectors. Your argument is totally absurd. So many people in Africa are dying of AIDS, malaria, and other diseases that have long been cured in western society, near apocalyptic levels of death by European standards, yet the population is growing and commerce is going on. Are you suggesting that this situation is "quite n…
What does AIDS & malaria have to do with food inspectors in the US? In China, far more people die from a lot of things because the majority of the country still lives in poverty. Lack of government regulation is why they are one of the world's fastest growing economy and economic growth is the main engine for solving their health issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe he's saying Ron Paul was pandering to Reddit. I really can't tell.
Maybe I put "pandering to Reddit" in quotes to emphasize how ridiculous that is. Maybe people should stop referring to everything they dislike on HN as Reddit-pandering, replete with tinfoil hats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I challenge you to give me one very specific example of how something is not going to work in a libertarian world and I'm going right here right now to prove you how it actually would work. (because, with all due respect, I think writing comments that basically say "it's not gonna work because it's puppies and rainbows" is not helping us find out the truth).
Others have chimed in with similar explanations but it often revolves around the principal problem of how do you allow "freedom" without infringing on someone else's? For instance, if I want to drink radiation laced water, Libertarians would think I have the right. They'd also say I should have to pay for my own medical treatment resulting from that. Reasonable enough. However, if I drank radiation laced water becaus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's one of the few politicians of that caliber where I think he's both batshit crazy while being a force for good (?) in the public sphere. I don't really know what to make of the man.
Precisely what part of Ron Paul's policies are "batshit crazy", hmmm? Which policies, specifically? Not wanting to fund wars and nation-building in other countries? Not picking sides in foreign revolutions, operating drone wars in other countries, assassinating American citizens and maintaining a secret "kill list" without any congressional approval? Wanting to close down Guantanamo Bay? Vetoing legislation that is u…
But I somehow doubt that policy would stay the same if there was more than one (or now zero) of him. And I happen to like public roads, safety regulations, and currency that doesn't deflate.